About Me

Monday, November 28, 2005

I dug this info in pilipinas forum yahoogroups' message archive. Even professional and business groups, even big political parties, were registered as party-list of "marginalized sectors", what a crap of opportunism the party list system is. Anyway, here's the list of all accredited party-list groups in the May 2001 elections.
-----------

Accredited Political Parties/Sectoral Organizations/Coalitions for the Party-List System

Thursday, November 17, 2005

From my readings of the 3-weeks riots in France, the usually-mentioned culprit for the anger by the rioters are: (a) the police's racism, arrogance and brutality to immigrants of African and Arab/North African origin; (b) high unemployment among immigrants, up to 40% or 4x the national average of 10% (and France has this 10% average unemployment rate for the last 30 years or more!), and (c) bad social conditions (housing, discrimination in work if ever employed, and so on).

The problem with the French police is an issue that can be addressed by Interior Minister Sarkozy and the police chiefs. The problem on unemployment and social discrimination I think, can be rooted to a "crisis of welfarism", of high expectations of welfare, and continuing disappointment of high taxes and over-regulation of business to maintain welfarism. This is a problem that has finally caught up with France, could spread to other European welfare states. Though France's situation is more unique and pronounce by virtue of its being a strong colonial power in the past.

France colonized dozens of countries in Africa; it even had colonies in Asia before -- Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia. When colonization officially ended, tens, hundreds of thousands from each of its former colonies went to France (especially the fallen rulers?). The migrants settled in France, produced offsprings who are France-born, expecting that they be entitled to the same welfare benefits as the "real" French, them white people with blue eyes, unlike them darker skin with black eyes and kinky hair.

But France's welfarism is already overstretched. Its budget deficit always exceeds 3% of GDP every year, a problem it shares with Germany and Italy and which angers many smaller countries in the EU who struggle hard to keep their budget deficit below 3% of GDP. France's public debt comprises 66% (or 2/3) of its GDP as of 2004 (data from IMF, World Economic Outlook 2005). And the unfunded liabilities of the social security system is estimated to be around 200 percent of GDP. The expenditures for public welfare, farm subsidies and other services always exceed tax collections and other revenues. And rightly so since France's taxes are among the highest in the world. Top marginal income tax rate is 48 percent, add in payroll taxes and productive citizens pay as much as 65 percent of their income in taxes. Who's happy surrendering 2/3 of his/her monthly income to the government? The top corporate tax rate is 34 percent and value-added tax (VAT) is around 20 percent.

A Frenchman friend told me that while many productive French people are leaving France, went to UK, US, Eastern Europe, other smaller-taxes economies (well, at least compared to those in continental European countries), the population of its welfare-dependent citizens and migrants continue.

Another problem of welfarism is over-regulation of labor laws, business and entrepreneurship. To hire employees means: (a) lots of additional fees to pay (workers' health insurance, unemployment insurance, etc.); (b) workweek is only 35 hours; (c) mandatory paid vacation leave is 5 weeks; (d) family and maternity leave is 36 weeks; and (e) it's very difficult and bureaucratic to lay off or fire employees. If you are an entrepreneur and faced with such rigid labor laws, while business and personal taxes are high, why hire more people? Better do it yourself, or move your shop or factory to Eastern Europe or Asia or the US where taxes are smaller and labor laws are less rigid. This largely explains for the high unemployment in France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, other European countries.

So, the cycle of high expectations of welfare and disappointment with high and multiple taxes and rigid labor laws is a trap that sustains discrimination and high unemployment. Now, if my hypothesis (ie, being a hypothesis, subject to test by facts and counter hypothesis and theories) that this is a "crisis of welfarism", then the current riots is one slam-dunk proof against socialism-inspired policies of the French government. The free-market system of less government intervention, less bureaucracy, less taxes, more entrepreneurship and more individual responsibility, is an old idea that continues to elude the political leadership of France and many welfarist countries.

The upcoming WTO Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong could be one opportunity for the high welfare, high agricultural protectionism countries, to slowly go back to the free market system. Simply slashing high farm subsidies, and slashing the high taxes that finance such huge farm subsidies, would provide justice not only to the over-taxed citizens of rich countries, but also to the farmers and agri-business enterprises in poorer countries.

From someone in a poorer country (the Philippines) writing about these things, some people in rich countries might train the gun back and say, "now, look who's talking!" But precisely the main reason why our country is poor, is because of the same high government interventionism, high and multiple taxation, over-regulation of labor laws and entrepreneurship, that many of our people are poor and unemployed.

Taxes in Welfare States

Many people, ordinary citizens and government leaders alike, in the poorer countries, envy the "free education, free hospitalization, long paid vacations, generous unemployment benefits,..." of many welfare states of Europe and other rich economies. I don't know if they also realize that maintaining a welfare state is very expensive for the taxpayers. After all, government has nothing to give to people except what it takes from other people.

Below are some data I got from the IMF's Government Finance Statistics (GFS) Yearbook 2004. Revenue = taxes + social contributions + other revenues (fees, charges) and grants. The taxes (various forms of income and consumption taxes) comprise between 1/2 to 2/3 of government revenues. Many of these fees and charges are not called as taxes because they are only created by administrative orders, not by the legislature or the Parliament. Nevertheless, whether they are called taxes or non-taxes fees and charges, they have one thing in common: they are mandatory and compulsory payment to the government.

General Government Revenue as % of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 2003 (unless specified):

Note from the above numbers that the US' welfare system is less taxing than those in Europe. In fact, the US' government revenues as % of GDP is nearly 1/2 of those in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. This partly explains why the US attracts more entrepreneurial people from many parts of the world, than Europe. But many Asian and Eastern European countries with smaller taxes and lesser government regulations are attracting more and more professionals and investors from both North America and Western Europe.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

July this year, Presidents and Prime Minsters from the US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Russia held a G8 summit meeting in Scotland, UK, to discuss more foreign aid, global warming, etc. Bob Geldoff (and Bono and other rock stars) organized the "Live8" series of rock concerts in major cities of the said 8 countries. Their mission: pressure the G8 leaders to commit "more aid", "debt write-offs", to many African countries, to "make poverty history".

One free-market group in London, the International Policy Network (IPN), organized the "Global Development Summit" (GDS) on June 28. I was one of the panel speakers then, it was my first time to see London and UK, thanks IPN :-).

A day before the conference, I revised a famous song (IPN Exec. Director Julian Morris helped me) by Bob Geldoff in the 80s, "I don't like Mondays", and here's what we produced, below. We sang it on stage before the formal conference started.

Original song:

I don't like Mondays
(by Bob Geldoff, Boomtown Rats band)

The silicon chips inside her head
that switched to overload
and nobody's gonna go to school today
she's gonna make them stay at home
and daddy doesn't understand it
he said she was as good as gold
and he can see no reasons
cause there are no reasons
what reasons do you need to be shown
oh-woh-woh-woh

The G8 leaders are planning more aid
and that would mean, more taxes
and nobody's gonna go to shops today
they're gonna slash your take home pay
and Blair doesn't understand it
he said he'd wipe out poverty
and he can see no reasons
cause there are no reasons
what alibi you need to be shown
oh-woh-woh-woh

Sunday, November 06, 2005

This is a short exchange we have in MG yahoogroups sometime in July 2004:
-------

Liberal vs. Libertarian

During the MG's QC meeting 3 weeks ago at QC we bumped into Chito Gasco (former UP USC chairman, 1987 Con-Com member, now DepEd UnderSec. He's also a member of the Liberal Party), he has also a meeting in another table. I gave him a copy of the MG Manifesto, he read it.

A person or politician can be liberal with doling out welfare -- education, health care, housing, basketballs, trophies, financing a kasal-binyag-libing (KBL), etc. But the same politician can be liberal in taking away -- partly of fully -- your earnings, your income, your wealth, your inheritance. A government that is big enough to give everything you want is also big enough to get everything you've got. Right? So, liberal with welfare, liberal with more or higher taxation.

A libertarian, on the other hand, emphasizes individual liberty, coupled with individual responsibility. I included this philosophy in the opening paragraphs of The MG Manifesto, minus the label.

So you work hard, you keep your earnings and income. You pay those goods and services that give you, your family, your friends, happiness and comfort. You don't expect that other guys will pay for your child's education, for your spouse's hospitalization, etc. Government practically has no role here. That's an ultra-libertarian view.

The Minimal (or limited, small) Government movement is not ultra-libertarian. Otherwise it will be a Zero Government movement. We're liberal with economic policies because we advocate freer markets, foreign trade and investment liberalization, free mobility of people/technology/ culture across countries. But we're not that liberal with welfare and taxation.

Still, as I mentioned earlier, we shall have that "Vaporize Government" section in our MG website. It will accommodate the ultra-libertarian views and papers. Submit to me such papers, other documents,

-- Nonoy

mang nonoy:

as a recent article in Tech Central Station said, the trouble with libertarianism is that there is no single libertarianism but many libertarianisms. so i cannot really say if the animal you are referring to is "ultra libertarian".

if MG is not liberal on taxation, then philosophically, MG supports theft. taxation is extortion. under the threat of force by the "state", an individual is asked to "pay" taxes. for one's own protection, one has to pay tong/taxes (walang pinagkaiba sa mafia). if an individual is not free to use his/her income the way he/she wants it (because he has to surrender a large part of it to the tong collector), then essentially, he is a slave of the tong collector. an individual works for the tong collector/MG. in essence MG is no different from a regular "government". an individual still has to pay the mafia to leave him alone. what will MG do if an individual does not give the MG the tong? aber?

-- ariel

Dear Ariel,

The problem with us, people in a modern day society is that we are defined basically by our proprietary rights. For instance, we have an official name that we need to tag ourselves with in order to deal about anything in the society. That alone needs government. Secondly, we need to own things, basic as they may be. We need clothes, shelter and food. When we buy clothing or a roof over our heads, we want to be sure we can keep it, meaning, we can "own" it. Otherwise what would stop your 6-foot four neighbour from barging into your house and throwing you out and keep all your clothes and including perhaps your children and wife for himself. We need government to uphold that, don't we. Becuase if you start owning a gun to keep the cro-magnon away, then he starts owning a bazooka. We need government to keep those simply things working, eh? But let's say cro-magnon elects to uphold your property ownership rights, you'll have to pay him don't you? And in the way of the world, cro-magnon becomes the leviathan we now call government.

We pay him, by way of taxes, and going back to the olden situation, we are actually paying him by choice. Because we need him now as much as we need the basic stuff like clothing, shelter and popcorn, este, food.

The mafia you don't need. The government, you do. I mean we can split hairs here until we all turn blue, of course.

I am in this MG thingy because consistent with what the MG manifesto advocates, i believe in max. efficiency in governance, and the need to increase self-dependency. I believe that there are excess fat somewhere that we can do without in the bureaucracy. We can merge, we can cut, we can dissolve some parts. But we have to support our claim with detailed analysis on where the excess fats are. Anyone can easily claim that we should streamline the leviathan, but what others can not do, that we can do, is start looking in specific dark corners of the bureaucracy. We have enough libertarian philosophies and collection of motherhoods e.g. just in the MTPDP of NEDA alone. MG has to be different by going the extra mile of detail.

GMA is slashing OP of 16 attached agencies, but on the other hand, is also creating 2 new offices to suit her "needs". MG can be aligned in these moves by presenting papers that zero in on the excesses, and coming up with workable methods to minimize the collateral damage to those who will lose their jobs, in order to make a step realistic, not only for thinkers like us, but also for the real people out there who will be in the cross-fire of the change we want to happen.

Oh. and as to the MG general philosophy/equation of Minimal Government = Minimal Bureaucracy = Minimal Taxes, somehow it gives the semblance that the final objective of MG is minimal taxes. I was made to believe that this is about individual freedom and increase in self-dependency and responsibility. Maybe the equation requires to be extended up to that point.

By the way, re: this liberal vs. libertarian thing, I think MG is closer to Ayn Rand's objectivism than anything else. At least objectivism might not have as many shades of grey than libertarianism.

-- Ozone

Yeah, Ariel, MG supports consumption tax, not income tax. We need tax bec. we still need a small govt. We still need a Supreme Court and lower courts. We still need a foreign affairs ministry or dept. and an Armed Forces. We still need a public works ministry where private road construction firms still feel they can't absorb into revenues the benefits that a particular road will bring. We still need a President or Prime Minister as head of the country, even for just symbolic function.

If you accept that we need a small government (say, only 5 departments + the Judiciary), then we need small taxes. If you accept that we need no govt., then we need no taxes and fees.

But if you believe that absolutely we dont need taxes, no government, go ahead! Start a Zero Government (ZG) organization or movement. No problem, man. I'm sure there are other individuals who believe in the same philosophy.

-- nonoy

believers in zero government do not need any movement. they just do their thing, produce, enrich themselves, trade with other free market believers, etc. and evade as much as possible the claws of the terrocrats. that's their main difference with the libertarians. The libertarians (like the libertarian party in the US), they still run for government positions. zero gov't believers just enjoy life without further complicating it. they don't impose on others, either their views or taxes.

– Ariel

Noy, I must express similar apprehensions about ultra-liberatarianism because I don't feel comfortable with its extreme utilitarian leanings. While stressing the principles of individualism (private choice and individual rights as well as individual responsibility) and limited government, we should also stress the rule of law, the natural harmony of interests, and the common good (and NOT the greatest good for the greatest number) which consists of both the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.

The question of whether the State should provide for education, health care and the like will depend on, I think, whether state intervention will generate greater positive externalities compared to leaving it to the private sector. Even Adam Smith thinks there should be some role of government in these sectors. The term "Vaporize Government" suggest we want to do away government, when it fact we just want to the State to promote the public interest without sacrificing private good. I think the State infringes on individual preferences when some fool of a congressman proposes that the government should mandate a 2-child policy!!! I guess that's why we need to discuss these core ideas in our first workshop this Tuesday. cheers,

-- John

Allow me to inject a cautionary remark. I think we are all agreed on the basic principle, that we are trying to achieve minimal government. My understanding of this group effort is to form opinions, formulate strategies and wield them in such manner as to achieve changes in the present scheme of things. From where I sit, mingovt is not -nor do we want to be- a rant and
rave group. Even as we may get long winded, in the process we must be resolute, seeing as we have to work within a system rather than having to nfight the multi-headed monster on all fronts.

John makes an excellent point: The term "Vaporize Government" suggest we want to do away government, when it fact we just want to the State to promote the public interest without
sacrificing private good

It's good for us to blow off steam, but if to achieve our objectives effectively, it is best for the group to sit down and discuss core issues, devise strategies, divide work, and proceed in an organized fashion.

Having said that, I realize the movement (if I may call it that) is in its birth Wehen...
and I am pleased to be part of it.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Official Development Assistance (ODA), or more popularly known as "foreign aid", is government to government; more specifically, resource transfer from rich country governments to poor country governments. The aid or assistance is in the forms of technical assistance, grants and loans. The first two forms of aid are small compared to foreign loans.

The biggest aid-giving bodies are the multilateral institutions -- the United Nations (UN) through its various agencies (UNDP, FAO, UNICEF, WHO,...), the World Bank (WB), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the regional development banks like the Asian Development Bank (ADB), European and African Development Banks. Some bilateral institutions like the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) are also big lenders to many poor country governments. Except for the IMF which gives out loans to countries experiencing balance of payment crisis like hemorrhaging foreign debt and downward spiralling currency depreciation, the above foreign aid banks and institutions are mainly engaged in project financing, mostly in physical and social infrastructure projects.

Citizens of rich countries finance those foreign aid institutions in the form of high taxes. The target beneficiaries are supposedly the citizens of poor countries. This does not happen all the time. Before foreign aid money reaches the poor in the developing countries, the money passes through several layers of bureaucracies first. These are (a) the legislators and Foreign Affairs Ministry of donor countries, (b) the personnel and consultants of multilateral and bilateral aid institutions, (c) the presidents and legislators of poor country governments who prepare and appropriate budgets, and (d) the local politicians and national bureaucrats of poor country governments who implement the projects.

This circuitous process often results in a number of wastes, if not outright theft by corrupt and irresponsible government leaders, and high spending on salaries and perks of consultants, from economists to engineers, from physicians to agriculturists, and so on. So that while American taxpayers shoulder some $16 billion per year of foreign aid to many governments around the world through the UN, WB, IMF, ADB and other regional development banks, and its own US Agency for International Development (USAID), only a fraction (often a small fraction) of this money really reach the poor in developing countries in the form of roads and medicines for malaria.

What is noticeable in these foreign aid institutions is that while their existence, including the salaries and perks of their personnel and consultants, are 100% financed by taxes, said people are not subject to income taxes; their importations like vehicles are not subject to import tax and possibly, other consumption taxes like or excise tax and value-added tax.

Foreign loans almost always require counterpart funds. Hence, taxes by citizens of rich countries should be matched by taxes of citizens of poor countries. Often, the ratio of foreign loans to counterpart funds is 50-50. This partly explains why leaders and consultants of foreign aid institutions and banks are either silent if not outrightly supporting tax hikes in poor countries. The case of expanded and hike in value added tax (VAT) in the Philippines is one example. The WB's country director is very vocal in supporting the VAT expansion and hike, along with a number of local consultants who have regular consulting work with foreign aid institutions and government agencies.

If foreign aid is circuitous and leaky, what are the alternatives?

Cut taxes in both rich and poor countries, let the citizens spend their own money on things and services they deem important. If citizens of rich countries experience income tax cuts, they will not burn the savings. They will use the money to buy more products and services from other countries, including poor countries, from mangos and bananas to hiring more nurses and food shop waiters. Or they will use the money to visit more tropical beaches and mountain resorts in the poor countries, which expands employment opportunities in the developing world. The money transfer here is more direct from rich country citizens to poor country citizens. The middlemen under "more foreign aid" framework -- the politicians and bureaucrats in both donor and borrowing countries, the consultants and bureaucrats in foreign aid institutions -- will not go hungry because many of them are talented enough to find other jobs, to shift to entrepreneurship under a regime of low taxes, small bureaucracy economy.